Posted by willsauve on 6/24/2013 11:56:00 PM (view original):I'd veto it just based on the guy getting the better player has owned the world for 28 seasons.. There's gotta be some goofy sh1t going on for a team to have a .700 avg win pct for that long.. At some point just fair isnt high enough of a price..

I wouldn't have vetoed but I'd have been frustrated(as one owner was). Seems that the Baltimore owner, who has owned the world, continually trades good older players for good younger players. That allows him to keep rolling along. I saw that in a world I was in. I made a loud point about it and, eventually, owners stopped making those deals with the league dominator. A lot of the deals that were made before I arrived(in S4) looked a bit "suspect" which led to the ability to make those 2-1, 3-1 with good talent moving both way possible.

New owner took over old and busted team with only one big asset on hand, 34 yo stud SP, easily top five in the world. New owner decides to leverage player for a rebuild.

Veteran owner, loaded on offense but needing SP and in win-now mode, trades 27 yo stud OF and spare parts for 34 yo stud SP and spare parts. Value achieved on both sides. But new owner's team is still terrible. 27 yo stud OF goes on block.

Second veteran owner trades 20 yo prospect and spare parts for 27 yo stud OF. So by now that 34 yo SP has eventually been traded for a first round pick. But you can't really protest the deal, because who else offered more at the time?

Posted by willsauve on 6/24/2013 11:56:00 PM (view original):I'd veto it just based on the guy getting the better player has owned the world for 28 seasons.. There's gotta be some goofy sh1t going on for a team to have a .700 avg win pct for that long.. At some point just fair isnt high enough of a price..

I wouldn't have vetoed but I'd have been frustrated(as one owner was). Seems that the Baltimore owner, who has owned the world, continually trades good older players for good younger players. That allows him to keep rolling along. I saw that in a world I was in. I made a loud point about it and, eventually, owners stopped making those deals with the league dominator. A lot of the deals that were made before I arrived(in S4) looked a bit "suspect" which led to the ability to make those 2-1, 3-1 with good talent moving both way possible.

Sounds like collusion. Basically if someone finds a better strategy than yours, you're just going to pout about it and do whatever it takes to put some arbitrary speedbumps in their path. If an owner isn't manipulating the amateur draft or making lopsided trades, you have nothing to be frustrated about. And if you're suggesting that he made lopsided trades in past seasons, then you're guilty of advocating 'two wrongs make a right'. "Owner A is too successful, so I'm going to veto all their trades and/or collude with the other owners to block them from the trade market" is childish.

Bevil has season 28, 29 & 30 left on his contract, w/ a mutual option in season 30. I'm not real comfortable on what triggers a guy to decline his end of his mutual option. Based upon his contract, I'm assuming the sim decided he was worth $9.7 mil a season. He'll get $10.7 mil in season 30, if he accepts his option, if he declines he'll make a lot more, but his initial demands will be in that ball park. I'm pretty sure if his contract was flipped and he was making $8.7 mil in season 30 that he'd decline the mutual option and hit free agency. I'm not sure about getting $1 mil more than his sim deemed worth. The acquiring owner may only get him for 2 seasons (obviously worth it if he's the ace he needs to challenge for another WS title or 2 over those 2 years), 3 at most.

I suppose I get the idea of vetoing here could be a way of telling the newbie "think about what you're doing" and "stud pitchers are valuable." (But I definitely wouldn't do it. I just get this argument) But if you veto because you're angry at this guy pulling off a nice trade for himself....bullshit.

It's not really fair to do this but I did. I randomly picked some trades he's made. A lot of them are with A) owners who only played 2-3 seasons B) no longer play HBD. I didn't look at the validity of the deals but, if he's swooping in on n00bs and stealing their futures, that's probably bad for a world. Well, no, it is bad for a world.